I do not feel you are attacking Mrs. Palin, nor did I feel you were denigrating me in your comment at 10:03 AM.

I understand your frustration, I feel it too. I look at my children and young grandchildren and it terrifies me to think about what kind of country they will be left with if we get 4 more years of Obama.

I had such optimism before this primary season began, but every day that optimism grows dimmer. The only thing I’m holding onto now, is that there are millions more in this country who have the same apprehension for their family’s future, that I have for mine.

As the mother of a son who served in Iraq, I’m sure Governor Palin is keenly aware of how high those stakes are.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 10:55 AM

I know about Palin’s son, and I’m sure Sarah Palin feels a great deal of anxiety regarding his health and safety. I know my own mother did under similar circumstances. That isn’t my point and–if you’re confused on this score–I’m not attacking Palin, Christi, Daniels, Ryan, Jindal, et al. I’m criticizing their decision. Each of them–Palin especially–often explicitly or implicitly refer to patriotism as one of their primary motivations for public service.

Well, here’s where the rubber meets the road. The GOP field is weak, and there’s no getting around it. And the reason it’s a weak field possibly/probably unable to beat an incumbent president with favorability numbers in the mid-to-low 40’s is because the strongest potential candidates–Palin, Christie, Daniels–chose not to run because of family considerations. ‘Familiy considerations’ is simply not a good enough reason not to do all they can to beat the hardcore, old-school socialists attempting to transform our country into yet another failed socialist superstate.

No Fence, just man power. Not so cheap is it? What happens in a real war? Do we have unsecure our borders to fight it?

astonerii on December 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Yeah, I read your whole post. You imagine that having huge numbers of spies in their countries and tons of targeted killings is not going to upset them much.

We have unsecured borders right now. We are at war right now. Paul wants us to have a smaller military. Me are already stretched thin now. Math is hard, logic apparently is far harder for people like you.

Right now we are getting the tens of thousands of created Jihadists to commit suicide attacking our troops in their home turf. Do you think that spies and targeted killings can get enough of them that they will not be shooting down airliners with Americans on board, or working to enter the US through our porous borders, which Paul is perfectly happy to leave porous because he thinks people from other countries deserve a fair chance to live the American dream. Paul says many thing, many of which contradict, but this much is certain about the man, you are not going to be able to paper over his total disregard for the security of this nation, if it is not disregard, then it is the worst possible level of stupidity on the subject anyone has ever uttered while trying to become commander in chief.

…maybe after 3+ years of criticism 24/7 in every medium possible, she finally came to believe what her critics have been saying.

Although I disagree with their assessment, maybe after being constantly told, even by those she believed would stand up for her, that she just didn’t have what it takes to handle the overwhelming task it will take to right this ship and put her back on course, they wrongly convinced her they were right.

As the proud wife, sister and aunt of members of our military, one of whom didn’t make it home, and one whom is now serving in Afghanistan, I know well the sacrifices they and their families endure.

I do however, venture, though at times fail, to not judge someone’s decisions unless I’ve walked a mile in their shoes.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 10:14 AM

I wasn’t denigrating you or the comment you made. I was disagreeing with it. Insofar as walking a mile in another’s shoes, I got that, too, but again: if my country is at a dangerous turning point or confronted by an imminent threat and I thought I could make a palpable difference by running for office and–if I won–then placing myself in a position where I could effect an outcome favorable to my country, then I would, and I’d like to think I’d do so regardless of personal cost.

The essence of patriotism is sacrifice. What’s a little character assassination by the MSM compared to the well-being of the Republic? An infantry private in Afghanistan puts it on the line every day and for him the stakes are infinitely higher. That ‘I’m not running for the sake of my family’ business just doesn’t cut it.

However, there are members of the military who not only risk life and limb for the sake of their country, but whose families also know hardship, uncertainty and loss, especially with seemingly endless tour rotations.

So no, declining to run or serve and saying they are ‘doing it for the kids’ just isn’t good enough, not in these times. Time to man (or woman) up.

troyriser_gopftw on December 8, 2011 at 10:03 AM

As the proud wife, sister and aunt of members of our military, one of whom didn’t make it home, and one whom is now serving in Afghanistan, I know well the sacrifices they and their families endure.

I do however, venture, though at times fail, to not judge someone’s decisions unless I’ve walked a mile in their shoes.

But I also can understand why some choose not to put their families through that wringer, such as Governor Daniels and if that’s the reason, Governor Palin.

Flora Duh on December 8, 2011 at 9:55 AM

I understand their reasoning well enough but don’t think the reasons are good enough. Capable leaders such as Palin and Daniels and Christie chose family over higher office: fine. However, there are members of the military who not only risk life and limb for the sake of their country, but whose families also know hardship, uncertainty and loss, especially with seemingly endless tour rotations.

So no, declining to run or serve and saying they are ‘doing it for the kids’ just isn’t good enough, not in these times. Time to man (or woman) up.

I wouldn’t either. And I am appreciative of those who do choose to throw their hat in the ring. But I also can understand why some choose not to put their families through that wringer, such as Governor Daniels and if that’s the reason, Governor Palin.

Others mentioned here also. I’m not that attuned but maybe there is an illness in the family or she became privy to opposition info that made her run with McCain look like a picnic. I know I wouldn’t put up with again.

]]>By: Cindy Munfordhttp://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/07/quotes-of-the-day-881/comment-page-4/#comment-5146133
Thu, 08 Dec 2011 14:25:46 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=169188#comment-5146133You know what I find interesting? What if after all the stuff they through at Newt, and we’re just getting started, he wins the nomination? What does that do to the media? Wouldn’t it be at least somewhat exciting if the Fourth Estate found out that they have been hit by the the “economy” of diminishing returns during our little recession? I’m a dreamer.
]]>By: Flora Duhhttp://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/07/quotes-of-the-day-881/comment-page-4/#comment-5146048
Thu, 08 Dec 2011 14:03:35 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=169188#comment-5146048

stenwin77 on December 8, 2011 at 8:11 AM

Fallon on December 8, 2011 at 8:32 AM

A few weeks before Governor Palin said she wasn’t going to run, I started to notice a change in her.

In her television appearances she seemed distracted and disheartened. There was a sadness in her eyes and her voice that I had never seen before.

I can’t remember where I read it, but supposedly her sister begged her not to run. I don’t know if that was just a rumor, or, if it was the deciding factor for her.

IMHO something happened that shook her to the core.

That may sound a bit like tin-foil hat territory, but my take is that the Sarah Palin during the last few weeks before her announcement date, was not the same Sarah Palin we had seen previously.

And, I still say you are mad at the wrong people. Where was the RNC/GOP when the Giffords tragedy was being hung around her neck and various other bizarre attacks on her and her family. Having been the VP choice in the previous election, she should have been the next RNC/GOP pick and yet, they threw their early, loud and monied support behind Mittens.

Nah. She didn’t leave us high and dry. The fix was in and she saw it before we did. If your are mad at anyone it should be at the RNC/GOP insiders, who really don’t give a crap about what we think.

Fallon on December 8, 2011 at 8:32 AM

There’s something to be said about FIGHTING. Which is why I’m going to vote for Newt. He FIGHTS.

I’m so stinkin mad at Sarah for leaving us high and dry. I still can’t listen to her.

stenwin77 on December 8, 2011 at 8:11 AM

And, I still say you are mad at the wrong people. Where was the RNC/GOP when the Giffords tragedy was being hung around her neck and various other bizarre attacks on her and her family. Having been the VP choice in the previous election, she should have been the next RNC/GOP pick and yet, they threw their early, loud and monied support behind Mittens.

Nah. She didn’t leave us high and dry. The fix was in and she saw it before we did. If your are mad at anyone it should be at the RNC/GOP insiders, who really don’t give a crap about what we think.

]]>By: ajacksonianhttp://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/07/quotes-of-the-day-881/comment-page-4/#comment-5145948
Thu, 08 Dec 2011 13:20:23 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=169188#comment-5145948Selecting someone to vote for as President means finding someone you will personally be comfortable in knowing that they will be able to keep their integrity and uphold the Constitution and oversee one-third of the government’s sovereign powers. That first part is the hardest especially if they take the government, as it is now, as being fully in line with the structure outlined by the Constitution. The siren’s song of money, power and passing off hard work to keep a restricted federal government tend to work opposite the upholding of the Constitution, itself.

The tools to uphold the Constitution from the Executive are the hats worn by the Executive: Head of Government, Head of State, Commander of the Armies and the Navies, and the one holding the final Pardoner of crimes.

In the Head of Government comes the naming of the heads of departments, getting a budget formed up to give to Congress, and the veto power. A President can propose legislation but it must actually get sponsors who will present it as their own in Congress. A Congress has traditionally helped out for a short ‘honeymoon period’ which varies, but has been heading downward over time as Presidents propose more and more to be done by Congress. Obama gets an extended honeymoon because of his leftist support by Congresscritters in his own party. No Republican will get that and no President should get that as it blurs the lines between Executive authority and Legislative authority. Thus, outside of fervent base adoration for more government by Congress, if you want a ‘legislative agenda’ to reduce the size of government it had better be short, sweet, pithy and FIRST. And if you want to shut down parts of government then one of the first actions is to state which parts need to draw up closure plans and find some Congresscritters willing to back you on that. And if you truly believe that a part of government is not in line with the Constitution, then it is time to start getting cases moved up through the courts to abolish them. The ability to propose SCOTUS Justices falls in the ‘Head of Government’ area as it is a part of the government where a long-term mark can be made.

Just on that, alone, one must be extremely careful on who they pick as President.

Head of State hat gets the entire foreign policy of the US. Do note that this can be used and the Law of Nations cited along with other Presidential work (Washington and Jefferson at least on this) to get rid of ‘sanctuary cities’ by taking them to court as intruding on the Executive mandate via the Constitution. Forming up foreign policy is wholly in the President’s arena save for making war, approval of Ambassadors and ratifying treaties. Everything outside the US is this domain and it is huge as it contains everything from Nation State foreign policy to our stance on non-Nation State actors going after sovereign power anywhere on the globe. Cronyism for Ambassadors has been rampant here for generations and a serious candidate must be one who can choose far outside a crony circle to get good and decent representatives of the US for a foreign country and know that Nation’s ways. Doesn’t matter if it is China or Luxembourg.

Commander of the Armies and the Navies. Not the militia, which is a State function, but the US Armies and Navies. The formulation of this power is straight from Law of Nations as it is the power to direct the military branches in peace time, war time and to direct them against hostile non-nation state powers under the area of Private War. The 20th century has seen a resurgence of the last and yet no one can actually state it in a way that makes any sense beyond terrorism, and so we get ineffectual leadership on this realm of power since at least JFK. Yes if a person makes war without a sovereign power of a Nation State allowing them to, then they are hostile not just to their stated enemies but all mankind. Progressives hate such clear and decisive terminology… and it shows by the rampant, multiple threats against the Nation State system by non-Nation State actors in the military, economic and civil realms. To back that up requires a distinctly drawn foreign policy to name enemies by the actions they do and the profile they fit. I’m still desperately looking for a candidate who understands this.

The Chief Pardoner. Some of the worst actors on the planet with political connections have gotten away with fraud, theft and even had worse pardoned. Fujitives from justice have gotten a nod when political connections were pulled, even though there was no exonerating circumstances for crimes they did. Worse still is that a few of these had turned over no new leaf in their lives and went on to more and worse criminal deeds, usually abroad. A sober President must see exonerating circumstances as the litmus test for the pardon power: not political payoffs and backroom dealing.

With these four hats we trust one person for four years.

We have been making mistakes on this for generations by allowing government and cronyism to usurp our choices not only via redistricting but via SCOTUS decisions that make no sense in the context of personal liberty. Most of the federal government’s current scope of powers have not even been contested Constitutionally… and I want a President who will do that and tell Congress to tie everything back to the Constitution and then take those parts of government that are not tied strongly to the actual verbiage to get court action taken by helping individuals bring cases and let the agency or department know that THEY have to defend their existence for you as President.

Got someone willing to take this up?

Someone you can TRUST with these powers?

I’m running out of options and the Republicans appear set to do a final kamikaze for Progressivism on our Nation in the name of political parties and partisanship. Of the couple who I can trust there are those not running and those who are untested but game to at least uphold the banner of the republic and question every thing the government does from front to back and start pulling at its roots. Thus if the top of the ticket continues in the Titanic direction, it is time to start addressing the crew, which is Congress, and the passengers that we are headed into desperate times. I will call the field of icebergs for what it is and that going full steam ahead is not only not wise, but lethal. And if the crew can’t do it, then I’m headed to the lifeboats: women, children and the willing able-bodied men first. I get stuck on the ship by that credo… so be it.

Your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor are up for grabs this time around. It has nothing to do about politics, and everything to do about saving this last, best hope of mankind. I will be marking a name down in the voting booth, yes, even if I have to write it in myself. Because that is my personal choice at that point in time to say what I think is best for the Nation… not for partisans and politicians, but the Nation as a whole.

Funny, it wasn’t the “Establishment” whom Newt stabbed in the back when he endorsed Scozzafava, it was the TEA PARTY. The TP came out for Hoffmann, and thanks to ole Newtie, DeDe-the-gun-grabbing-RINO won.

Aslans Girl on December 8, 2011 at 7:47 AM

Yes, and Sarah endorsed freaking John McCain.

No, I don’t like it. But you have to admit, the establishment cronies (Rove, etal) are pushing Mitty.

Creditors say Gingrich has begun paying back nearly $1.2 million in bills he owed at the end of September, and his spokesman says most will be taken care of by the end of the year. Other debts — including $42,000 owed to Gingrich himself for the campaign’s use of a mailing list — have already been paid, ahead of those owed to other vendors, according to aides and disclosure records…

Of course the campaign’s debt to himself was the first one paid.

$42K for a bunch of names?

It seems that Newt was in this to live high-on-the-hog for several months, & to get his name in the news so he could sell more books.